165 replies to this topic

[Quxudica]

Lord of All, on 20 April 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

MG's are for infantry period. get over it.

That isn't true, but even if it was - having a weapon in game designed to kill something that isn't and likely never will be in game is just bad game design. Objectively bad game design at that, there's no getting passed it - it's feature bloat at best and a broken mechanic at worst. No weapon should do more damage to you then it does to the enemy.

[Grimmnyr]

Elepole, on 20 April 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

For infantry indeed:

That is probably the size of a mech-mounted machine gun and your point? That bug probably weighs less than a ton.

FupDup, on 20 April 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

I never knew that "2" was considered as minimal damage.

Considering that it is one of the two lowest damage weapons in MWO, I would consider it minimal. Please note that I said "minimal", not "minimum".

[FupDup]

Ed Steele, on 20 April 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

That is probably the size of a mech-mounted machine gun and your point? That bug probably weighs less than a ton.

The bug is just for scale, it's not a part of the point.

The point is that a mech MG is friggin' big. Something that friggin' big had better have more utility than a handheld assault rifle.

[Grimmnyr]

Quxudica, on 20 April 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

That isn't true, but even if it was - having a weapon in game designed to kill something that isn't and likely never will be in game is just bad game design. Objectively bad game design at that, there's no getting passed it - it's feature bloat at best and a broken mechanic at worst. No weapon should do more damage to you then it does to the enemy.

I agree that the MG should do very little damage to the mech that it is mounted on if it is destroyed, that part does not make sense to me.

FupDup, on 20 April 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

The bug is just for scale, it's not a part of the point.

The point is that a mech MG is friggin' big. Something that friggin' big had better have more utility than a handheld assault rifle.

It does, that fact that it damages a mech at all is impressive.

[LinkIcefang]

I'll just leave this here...

Quote

Small, lethal, and limitless, the Small Laser serves as an anti-personnel "infinite repeater" against infantry and lightly armored vehicles.

http://www.ign.com/w...ine/Small_Laser

[Loler skates]

FupDup, on 20 April 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

The bug is just for scale, it's not a part of the point.

The point is that a mech MG is friggin' big. Something that friggin' big had better have more utility than a handheld assault rifle.

Nah man the mgs in mechs fire ruger sized bullets.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Ruger_MK_II

[Elepole]

Ed Steele, on 20 April 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

That is probably the size of a mech-mounted machine gun and your point? That bug probably weighs less than a ton.

This, sir, is one of the most powerful anti-armor weapon in service right now: the GAU-8 Avenger, weapon of the feared A-10 Thunderbolt II Warthog. You should know this weapon can punch through more armor than there is on the front of your average Atlas.

[FupDup]

LinkIcefang, on 20 April 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.ign.com/w...ine/Small_Laser

CRITSEEKING SMALL LASERS, ANYONE?

Edited by FupDup, 20 April 2013 - 06:30 PM.

[Joe Mallad]

Quxudica, on 20 April 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

That isn't true, but even if it was - having a weapon in game designed to kill something that isn't and likely never will be in game is just bad game design. Objectively bad game design at that, there's no getting passed it - it's feature bloat at best and a broken mechanic at worst. No weapon should do more damage to you then it does to the enemy.

here is the problem... most of the guys that are saying they are for anti-infantry only are not comprehending that even in table top (where they are derived from) anti-infantry means (armored infantry or infantry fighting vehicles) a armored infantry vehicle like a hum-v or a armored car is considered an armored infantry unit. These things have ARMOR on them. light armor... sure but armor none-the-less. These machine guns are designed to rip through light armor.

It matters not if its an armored infantry SOLDIER, half track or a light mech. It will take a lot longer to rip through mass amounts of heavier armor on a larger mech or tank but they still do damage. And they should still do a decent amount of damage to mechs as well.

[Loler skates]

Lol some troglodyte is editing the Sarna wiki page on machine guns to remove the statement about mgs being good against armour.

What a digusting person.

[FupDup]

Loler skates, on 20 April 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

Lol some troglodyte is editing the Sarna wiki page on machine guns to remove the statement about mgs being good against armour.

What a digusting person.

He has no soul.

NO SOUL!!!

[Joe Mallad]

LinkIcefang, on 20 April 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

I'll just leave this here...



http://www.ign.com/w...ine/Small_Laser

thank you thank you!! This is why i was comparing the mech machine gun to the small pulse laser.

The small laser was designed to do the same as a machine gun yet its still able to damage a mech.

[Elepole]

FupDup, on 20 April 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

He has no soul.

NO SOUL!!!

What is soul ? Can i eat it ?

[danust]

FupDup, on 20 April 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

Even an AMS would be better for 1.5t because some people still use Lurms (even though they're weak) and most missile-capable mechs load Streaks (which are still quite useful).



If 4 out of 5 weapons on a mech are machine guns, they're the main weapons. A weapon is not designated as "main" in the mechlab, it is decided by how the player outfits their robot. My point still stands.



Then torso twist while let your heat dissipate and/or equip some lower-heat weapons like Gauss. There's also the ever-popular strategy of hillhumping/poptarting.

I'll get a lot more for just one ton in a medium laser. Or even a single small laser for 0.5t is better. Or a small pulse. Or an SRM2 (2 tons with ammo).

Lol. Thanks for the lessons on piloting. I am not a epeen pilot for sure. AMS LURMS torso twist SRM2 small laser small pulse. All my comments were in the context of 1 ballistic slot one slot for ammo and 1.5t.

I am going to go shoot robots. Might even put on a MG. Later.

[Loler skates]

Leedair, on 20 April 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

Lol. Thanks for the lessons on piloting. I am not a epeen pilot for sure. AMS LURMS torso twist SRM2 small laser small pulse. All my comments were in the context of 1 ballistic slot one slot for ammo and 1.5t.

I am going to go shoot robots. Might even put on a MG. Later.

you know with the way the AMS system is designed if you could force it to shoot mechs it would 6X as powerful?

AMS does 2DPS....

[FupDup]

Leedair, on 20 April 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

Lol. Thanks for the lessons on piloting. I am not a epeen pilot for sure.

That's neat.

Leedair, on 20 April 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

AMS LURMS torso twist SRM2 small laser small pulse. All my comments were in the context of 1 ballistic slot one slot for ammo and 1.5t.

Mine were in the context of things that cost near or less than 1.5 tons and are much stronger. They cost less than the MG and are several magnitudes more powerful. The "attack while cooling down" thing isn't as useful as it sounds. It's generally better to just not fill that last ballistic slot.

Leedair, on 20 April 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

Might even put on a MG.

You really can do that if you want, but I'd recommend against it for reasons listed above.

Edited by FupDup, 20 April 2013 - 06:39 PM.

[Blackfire1]

I run a Hunchback 4g with 3 machinguns, 2 large lasers, and one medium.

Literally ALL my damage, kills, and component breaches came from the Large Lasers. The Machineguns are to make people stand still because they don't think I'm going to do damage. lol

[Team Leader]

I would take literally anything at this point. While i love the MG being constant fire, if we have to give that up (we shouldn't have to PGI..) to get damage out of it, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

Loler skates, on 20 April 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

Lol some troglodyte is editing the Sarna wiki page on machine guns to remove the statement about mgs being good against armour.

What a digusting person.

I have to keep putting that back. Disgusting, really.

[FupDup]

Team Leader, on 20 April 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

I have to keep putting that back. Disgusting, really.

Keep fighting the good fight.

WE MUST FIGHT THEM ON THE RIVERS. WE MUST FIGHT THEM IN THE CAVES. WE MUST FIGHT THEM ON THE RIDGES. WE MUST FIGHT THEM ON THE CITIES. WE MUST FIGHT THEM ON THE OILRIGS. WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER!

Edited by FupDup, 20 April 2013 - 06:46 PM.

[Loler skates]

FupDup, on 20 April 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

Keep fighting the good fight.

WE MUST FIGHT THEM ON THE RIVERS. WE MUST FIGHT THEM IN THE CAVES. WE MUST FIGHT THEM ON THE RIDGES. WE MUST FIGHT THEM ON THE CITIES. WE MUST FIGHT THEM ON THE OILRIGS. WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER!

THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE, THIS FAR, NO FURTHER!